Here's a thought: Do any of you, as GMs, feel that you might be inclined to "fudge" more in favor of the PCs during an AP adventure than during a normal stand-alone adventure, just so you can be sure you'll get to "use" the whole AP?
I mean, if you get a TPK in a normal adventure, your players can just make up new PCs and play another one, but if you get a TPK in an AP adventure, you may be unable to use any of the other AP adventures that follow with that group, since replaying earlier episodes with new characters can be boring and weird and just starting new characters where the old ones left off can be awkward to explain.
Thoughts?
I wouldn't think it would encourage "fudging" anymore than running a mega-module like Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil would.
I would think that if you have all the members in a party die, either the DM is doing something wrong or the players are, or there was just some REALLY bad luck.
I think in all three of those cases, as long as you are playing the game as a game, that is, for the enjoyment of it all, then you should fudge. Fudging may be letting a monster miss when it should have it, or allowing a route of escape for the players, or even godly intervention of some sort.
You might even have negative reprocussions against the players, like permanent stat point drain, or loss of magical items, wealth, or something else similar. Maybe even level loss which requires them to go on another interim adventure to gain the experience back.
In any case, for me at least, D&D is about having fun, not about letting everyone in the party die and a whole campaign be lost, just to stick to the rules.
In any case, for me at least, D&D is about having fun, not about letting everyone in the party die and a whole campaign be lost, just to stick to the rules.
I'm with you here. A character dying here and there makes characters fear you as a DM (let's be serious here.. if characters NEVER die, what's the point?), but to kill of the entire party is usually extreme. But if the characters are being really stupid, I say give 'em what they ask for. ;)
To answer the initial question: yes, I think I would be more likely to cut the characters a break so as to run the whole campaign arc.
Whenever a DM invests a lot into a (series of) adventure(s) or a campaign the risk of fudging comes along. It comes with the interest of letting all that work pay off.
But fudging is only necessary if something goes wrong - all the players do a bad job, the encounters are terribly overpowered or a severe case of bad luck jumps up. The DM can counter most of these without fudging but in order to keep the campaign and the fun alive a little bit of fudging might be necessary!
Maybe a little... but it's worth it. ;)
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
I fudge ocasionally, but I have a bad habit of rolling LOTS of natural 20's while DMing (too bad it never seems to work so well while I'm a player) and a very wide narrative streak. PC death by lucky kobolds every other session would be bad for stories. As for APs . . .
I would hope that the writers of the Adventure Paths would have taken the durability of the campaign into acccount when they wrote each of the modules. In the old days modules were frequently written in a DM vs. the Player's mentality and the challenge was to finish a dungeon not to finish a story.
I think the current trend of using RPGs to tell stories whether an AP or home brew campaign encourages some fudging either to finish the story with some of the characters intact or to make sure that when the heroes go down they go down in glory.
A good death can be a story of it's own.
I personally have never achieved a TPK; the worst I ever had was three survivors out of a party of thirteen (and one of them had split off and left, thinking the other two were dead) who took on a single high-level fighter who was being dominated by a sentient, Evil sword.
There have been one, two or three casualties here and there, but on the whole, the party continues to move on.
M
As a DM, I run my players through campaigns as opposed to single adventures. Maybe they aren't as cohesive as the Adventure Paths, but they are campaigns nonetheless. As a group of people with jobs and families, we only get to play for about 2 solid days per month, so it can take 2 months to gain a level, and a few years to finish a campaign.
So to answer the question, I absolutely fudge a few things to keep the campaign going. I've never had to blatantly save an entire party, but I've reduced an attack roll, undone a critical hit, or lowered a DC to stop a player from dying at a vital moment due to dumb luck. One of the biggest problems I run into in the game is setting someone back a level (i.e. 2 months) because of a bad roll. I have no problem punishing carelessness, but the last thing I want to do is start another campaign from scratch given how much we've put into this one.
But at least the Adventure Paths, or homebrewed campaigns, allow flexibility. If characters die and need to make up a level before continuing, you can fit a side adventure into the story fairly easily. I DM'd the Dragonlance series once. At relatively low levels, these guys were facing adult dragons with little healing at their disposal. And characters couldn't die permanently due to roles they may play in future modules. That was a truly horrible DM experience - good adventures strung together into an impossible campaign - that required so much fudging that we stopped after the 2nd module.
Fudging - yes. Double-dip chocolate brownie fudging - no way.
mmm ... fudge
I wouldn't fudge just to keep the campaign going, since I usually have a backup plan in case of a TPK. I would fudge if a TPK was imminent because of bad luck or a faulty ruling from my side. I wouldn't fudge if a TPK was imminent because the players acted stupid.
For example: my party have currently encountered Aushanna (the erinyes) in Zenith Trajectory in AP 1. They are all equipped with longbows (composite mighty for those who can use them). What do they do? Of course they begin casting spells at her, and when that don't work they decide to flee instead of shooting her down.
So, there's a big chance there will be multiple fatalities and depending on their actions it could result in a TPK. But since the situation occured because they acted stupid I won't fudge, if they die they die.
As a DM i find a TPK depressing because i don;t want all the time and effort that they players have placed on their charters to go to waist...
I have had a near TPK with one person surviving (the kasmojen fight) and one that if i did not have her back down it would have been a TPK (the erneys fight) and the fight with the 3 hags could have been worce because my players passed by all the giants with only killing one so they would have leveled before that fight...
but that is a DM's job to have fun and chanlenge the players with out killing them outright
Oddly enough I've had quite a run of bad luck and the last 2 campaigns I ran ended in TPK. The first one was player stupidity, the halfling decided zombies were immune to cold and summoned a bunch to kill the white dragon, only to die at it's claws. Then the Monk seemed to go insane and rushed deeper and deeper into the dungeon to kill the bad guy, the cleric trailing behind him saying "we shouldn't do this, we should go back." every 10 feet. They found the bad guy and, oddly enough, he killed them.
The second TPK was my fault after some amazingly good rolls and general player complaining i decided to show my rolls, then an encounter i expected the players to rest up for happened when they had just finished a horrible fight depleating almost all of thier resources. Then i rolled 3 natural 20's in a row in full view of the players...
i don't think i'll ever get complaints about how good my rolls are again though :)
as to the topic at hand, I'm very eager to see the adventure play out so I'll probably be fudging like mad or at least making plans for when the monk goes insane again so i can replace dead characters.
Well, I just let the chips fall where they may, guys. That may sound harsh, but quite frankly, every so often, the villains should succeed.
"Well, I just let the chips fall where they may, guys. That may sound harsh, but quite frankly, every so often, the villains should succeed."
Oh, I agree. But when I've bought twelve great adventures and it ends up that I may not be able to use ten of them?
There's some real temptation to cheat a bit there! :)
Maybe the questions should be:
1. How important to the plot are the characters that start the Adventure Path (If they all die, does the purpose of the quest die as well)
2. Are there any points where the adventure path draws in additional PCs if the DM needs to do so.
I've been reading the Evil Adventure Path varient on the Journal thread. Most of the main characters have died off (some several times). When a PC dies, a new PC just happens to arrive and join the party. While this works to keep Players in the game, these new PCs really need a tie to the campaign, otherwise they end up just hanging with the party for fun and profit, which they could be doing with a wide variety of other parties. Perhaps (and I think the last AP may have had these) having Adventure hooks beyond "having completed the last adventure".
ASEO out
I had a strange situation with changing PC… I was running the black egg as a side quest to get XP after TOTSE. just after I had the party paladin and the party Sorcerer (SOSE and now evil because he threw his familiar in to get it) go off So the players created new charters… I had one character be a refugee from the town found in the rubble near the crash site. The next PC was a druid in the shape of a bear who attacked the Black orcs out side of the egg… this worked well for getting these players involved in this story but I was going to require some Role-playing to have a reason to have them stay with the party… the non druid ended up dieing in the adventure (spell casters should not get involved in Melee) but the druid did well… however the player decided to have the duid leave after that adventure was done. I like the way it turned out.
The way I got their newer charters involved was one made a paladin who was of st Cuthbert witch was easy.. The other was a guest of crazy jarred who found the parties stories to be interesting and wanted to fallow… the last one is kinda week but it works… there are now no original charters in my story but there are some strong bonds to the story especially with a paladin and cleric of st Cuthbert
I mean, if you get a TPK in a normal adventure, your players can just make up new PCs and play another one,
Thoughts?
The unwritten rule in our group, regardless of who is DMing, is that death isn't permanent for any PC. They may have to go on a quest of some type to reverse a death, and they know what type of creatures not to pick a fight with because it COULD mean their permanent deaths, but we don't just chuck our sheets aside and roll up a new one for one good reason: storyline.
Some of our players have been running the same PCs for 10 years or more. They have developed intricate backgrounds, loyalties, family ties to other PCs or NPCs, etc. These are the PCs our players enjoy using the most, because in addition to a great campaign you ALSO have meaningful interaction. A threat to your PCs town becomes so much more meaningful when as a player you have spent the last five years building up your guild in that town. When your PC gets a call for help from another PC to deal with that threat, it's much more meaningful when you actually REMEMBER that game two years ago when that PC came to YOUR aid.
We're running PCs that are third generation children of the PCs we ran five years ago (and still run, actually... nobody retires). Not only are they old friends, but also siblings and cousins and they grew up together. Makes for much more intense emotional responses when you watch your mate or grown child die at your side in a fight as opposed to someone you met in a tavern that morning, or you're putting together a group to rescue your sister who's been kidnapped (and happens to be another PC) as opposed to answering an ad to rescue someone you've never met.
That's the role playing our group prefers. And you can't get that if death is permanent because the PC never has a chance to build that history.
I believe that Erik Mona fudged his playtest of the first AP adventure to keep the party alive (or at least certain party members), which gives you an indication of how many potential TPK's the series will have.
Fudging is part of a DM's job, and if he is clever the party should never know that any fudging went on. Personally, most of the TPK's I have seen have been a combination of bad preparation on the DM's part and player carelessness or stupidity. Dice rolls can also play a part, but the easiest thing to do is fudge a dice roll. Why else were DM screens invented?
As I alluded to above, DM preparation is the key to avoid TPK's. If the party is facing an overwhelming encounter provide an escape route for the PCs or at least give them a chance to surrender (if this is feasible) and escape later.
Watch the EL of your encounters and the CR of your monsters. A lot of DMs still don't know how this system works, or ignore it entirely (a recipe for disaster in 3.5). A lot of heartache can be avoided if you understand how the system works, and how to employ it properly when running and preparing encounters.
Finally, TPK's are not always bad, and can provide a wealth of opportunities for roleplaying (as a few people have already alluded to). The possibilities are endless!
Ive been Dming for 5 maybe 6 years now and when i first started Dming heck ya, killin' PCs was my fav-or-ite thing ta do. But after running counless adventures and campaigns i began to find that i liked the storys that were created through the game, and that my player enjoy a character made from scratch way more than from say, 5th Lv. So "fudging" for me ya to about 5th lv or so alot of "unknown fudging happens to help aid the character make it to the point that a raise dead spell or reserection scroll is not totally unatainable. Then my "fudging" takes a dramatic drop as by this point the players should be able to manage without the DMs help. I find that this makes an enjoyable time had by all. And every character becomes memorable. But, and i say but, there is a fine line between to much and not enough. Make the players feel as if your never "fudging", and ya accidents happen.
Without question.
If I've gone through all the work to know, in depth, every coming twist and turn in a four hundred page adventure... if I've learned the pecadillos and personal histories behind each of sixty some odd NPCs?
You bet your arse we're gonna play this thing through.
We're gonna play it through and we're gonna LIKE it!
I just started running AoW tonight for my group. I told them ahead of time I am not going to fudge a single die roll during this campaign either in their favor or against. I told them they must learn to survive by their wits alone and that there will be a price to pay for mistakes.
Since 1st-level can be a mortal time in a character's life, I have some cushions for them. First, we use the action points variant from Unearthed Arcana, although I only allow them to add a d6 to a d20 roll or to automatically stabilize. Second, I allow them to use RPGA campaign cards by spending one of their action points. I'm reporting this campaign to the RPGA after all so they can get reward points, so why not? This gives them a few extra options for those times when heroes just need to get lucky.
I'm not typically like this though. I usually view the story as the most important part of a campaign, and if a death in the party is not going to contribute to that story, I usually don't let it happen. On the flip side of that coin however, I may decide a death in the party (or some other similar kind of set-back) is a VERY good thing for the story, and I will go out of my way to make it happen (this is rare, I'm not that mean). Sometimes the players will foil a villain's plans so thoroughly that it is all the villain can do to make the PC's lives miserable. At such points I often find it necessary to ratchet the mortality of the campaign up a few notches in order to impress upon the PCs the true magnitude of their situation. However, I rarely condone permanent removal of a character from a game. For this reason I usually have "safety nets" to prevent low-level characters (the ones who can't afford raise dead) from dying.